Manage your subscription

Let’s get to the bottom of science’s class divide

As the son of a milkman, new science minister Greg Clark might want to know he has a social mobility problem to fix

By Michael Brooks

Greg Clark could be the man to tackle the class divide in science

(Image: Guy Corbishley/Demotix/Press Association)

As Greg Clark takes the reins as the UK’s new science minister after a reshuffle of top posts, he might not be aware that this month marks 10 years since the UK government published a framework for boosting science and innovation.

That report suggested directing significant effort towards increasing the uptake of science, technology, engineering and maths opportunities at school, filling the “STEM” pipeline. Strategies included “ensuring that there are strong market signals” – that is, publicising the higher salaries for STEM graduates. But STEM employers continue to grumble about a shortage of suitable candidates.

According to the latest Higher Education Statistics Agency figures, 46.8 per cent of full-time undergraduates were on STEM degrees in 2002-03, while in 2012-13 that figure was 45.3 per cent. While that’s not a disaster, given rising overall student numbers, it’s not exactly a ringing endorsement for the STEM push.

Advertisement

Why has there not been more progress? A report published this month suggests that Britain’s thriving class system is to blame.

Banking on science capital

Even with the lure of higher wages, working class and minority students don’t want these careers, even if they have some interest in science early in their education. The underlying problem is, they lack “science capital”.

This refers to the engagement with, and interest in science within the student’s family, family friends and in their immediate environment. If you have high science capital, you are in regular contact with people who work in the field or are comfortable discussing science in the news or day-to-day life. You are also, it seems, far more likely to aspire to a career in science throughout your time at school. And you are probably middle class.

By the time students are 16, the importance of science capital means the demographic of science-loving students is shifted significantly towards the middle class. Although not all middle-class families have significant science capital, and not all working-class families lack it, there is a real hurdle here when it comes to social mobility. The ASPIRES report, put together over the last five years by the UK’s Economic and Social Research Council, highlights this issue.

After surveying over 19,000 students, it states&colon; “Students from families with medium or high science capital are more likely to aspire to science and STEM-related careers and are more likely to plan to study science post-16… students with low science capital who do not express STEM-related aspirations at age 10 are unlikely to develop STEM aspirations by the age of 14.”

This is important. Now we know what the real problem is, we can begin to fix it.

Pygmalion project

The UK-based programme Generating Genius offers one solution. It looks for talented students from low-science-capital backgrounds who are then hothoused and immersed in science, often through residential programmes within a university environment. They are also taught leadership, communication and negotiation skills, and prepared for higher education.

All 900 students who have joined the programme since 2005 are now at top-tier universities. The organisation’s founder, Tony Sewell, describes the project as removing them from the “anti-knowledge” environment in which many are growing up. It is, he says, a “Pygmalion project”. Even the students realise this&colon; many say that the course has transformed them into middle-class teenagers.

Another provider of science capital is the Brightside Trust, which has created a team of online mentors. A student from a background without role models and a school with little experience of STEM aspirations is at a serious disadvantage, the Trust points out. While you can’t change their family situation, you can supplement their relationships by giving them access to suitably qualified and experienced mentors. Since 2003, 50,000 young people have accessed Brightside’s mentors.

It doesn’t all have to take place outside school. Research by the Education Endowment Foundation, which works with students from minority and disadvantaged groups, shows that surrounding them with better teachers and peers is another way of creating science capital. Other studies have shown that improved teaching leads to better wages for students, even if that is not the explicit aim. That benefit is particularly marked for those from lower socio-economic groups.

Unwitting biases

The ASPIRES team makes several other recommendations for how schools can help. One is that science teaching should ensure students see that STEM qualifications aren’t just for research, medicine or teaching – they open the possibility of a wide variety of jobs. They should also make it clear that science is not just for the top students; a significant number who actively enjoy science still think it’s not for them because they are not “brainy” enough.

There are also unwitting biases that cause teachers to unconsciously deter those in minority groups not traditionally associated with science careers – black males, white females, working class students. This needs to be addressed through awareness training.

Finally, the report recommends paths for students who don’t achieve particularly high grades aged 16 and beyond, so they can continue with science.

It would have been helpful to know all this before our STEM initiatives ploughed the wrong furrow for a decade; it is a good example of why those intent on a programme of social tinkering would do well to consult the real experts – that is social scientists – before they begin.

Maybe Greg Clark, who hailed Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee’s focus on the divide between the UK’s haves and have-nots, is the man to rip it up and start again.